Extraordinary citizen journalism

Although I have little faith in citizen journalism to do real investigative work and produce the kind of long exposés we’ve seen in Vanity Fair or The New Yorker, it’s hard to argue with the power of ordinary people on the ground with cell phones and internet connections to record the unfolding of events as they happen. This has been dramatically demonstrated over the past few days by the extraordinary coverage of the Iran election protests by Nico Pitney in The Huffington Post.

Grade: A+

Obama’s speech in Cairo

The BBC: Obama Speech: An Analysis

An interesting and effective approach, if somewhat gimmicky. The BBC broke up the text of the speech into sections, and after each section inserted a “pop up” analysis from one of their commentators. It’s a good way to encourage the reading of the entire transcript. The annotations encourage a thoughtful review of the content. The analysis itself is uneven. I like the way Paul Reynolds, BBC world affairs correspondent, puts the president’s statements in the context of Obama’s policy positions. I found this helpful and thought-provoking. I did not have much use for his value-laden assessments, using language such as “romanticize” or “flatter.” This is wholly a matter of projecting on the part of Mr. Reynolds. He is not a psychologist. Grade: B+

Deutsche Welle: Obama speaks of new beginning between US and Muslim world

A very objective summary of the president’s remarks. No spin, no value judgment. Some excerpts from the speech. As a news report conveying the content of the remarks, DW did an excellent job. Someone who did not see the speech would understand the intent, the tone, and the impression left by the speech. Grade: A

Photo decision

Why’d Obama switch on detainee photos? Maliki went ballistic

I’m searching around for other websites with this story. I found it on Truthout while going through the blogs this morning. No sign of it on The Huffington Post—a site that recently won an award for supposedly superior news coverage.

I’ve seen extensive coverage and commentary on the president’s decision to bar the release of the photos, but only one paper reported on the reason for the decision. McClatchy has often taken a broadly covered stories and delved into details otherwise ignored. This is one of those times.

Grade: A

Reforming bank oversight

Single-Regulator Plan for Banks Now Close

I haven’t seen this anywhere but the WSJ.

Sotomayor’s record

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor created a whirlwind of articles and commentary. There was no go-to source on this one—as it should be. The nominee has a complex and rich background, and the response to her would be impossible to capture in one report. Different news outlets took different perspectives on the prospective justice, and combined gave any interested reader a varied and dynamic look at the president’s pick.

Wall Street Journal: Record Shows Rulings Within Liberal Mainstream

McClatchy: Sotomayor’s greatest impact could come from who she is

New York Times: Nominee’s Rulings Are Exhaustive but Often Narrow

Washington Post: Sotomayor on the Issues

Mother Jones: Will Sotomayor Split the Right?

The Daily Beast: One Tough Judge

The Nation: Obama Pick Sonia Sotomayor Reflects America

Vanity Fair: Squawking Aside, Sotomayor Pick Is Just Right

The New Yorker: Jeffrey Toobin: The Arc of a Justice

California court upholds Prop 8

San Jose Mercury News:

San Francisco Chronicle

LA Times

NPR

Huffington Post

North Korea’s nuclear test

New York Times: For some reason, this article strikes me as hastily written, which in itself is not surprising. I am bothered, however, a somewhat hysterical tone, and by a certain amount of carelessness in the writing. For example, this excerpt:

The test was safely conducted “on a new higher level in terms of its explosive power and technology of its control,” the agency said.

This may be a technicality, but the word “safely” is not in quotes, and is not in any way supported by any other statement in the article.

There is also an excess of emotional language and a lack of organization throughout, as if this piece was thrown together. For such a serious subject, I would hope for better writing, at the least. I did like the background on why relations w South Korea have become more strained. Grade: B-

The Washington Post: A heavily researched, well organized article with a lot of detail from U.S. intelligence sources. Seismic evidence about the launch is not only stated, but put in context. Background tensions with the U.S., and detail on reactions in the Korean peninsula.

What is most admirable about this article is its refusal to exploit the story for sensationalism and its resisting emotional language. The tests are described as being of little surprise, indeed expected because of intelligence gathered in the the area. The ramifications and reactions across the region, however, are presented clearly and with background. This kind of fact-based, mature reporting is becoming all too rare these days.

The article is lacking in some good detail seen in the NYT about what has recently transpired between North and South Korea. Grade: B+

Christian Science Monitor: An astonishingly completely coverage of this story. CSM may be breaking journalism rules by linking to other sources, such as the L.A. Times, The BBC, and Reuters, but it certainly does the reader a great service in providing a broad swath of information and perspectives. It even gives a brief report on how the test affected the Asian stock market.

This article demonstrates a strength internet news coverage provides that print journalism can not. A single article can draw on multiple sources to provide readers with the best journalism has to offer on the subject. The danger, of course, is that outlets will begin to link to each other and information will begin to contract rather than expand. We must have the groundwork done by as many trained journalists as possible to generate the raw material on which to build a story.

The sources CSM chose to bring to this article are varied and informative. Although CSM’s own staff did not develop the story, they ensured that it was brought in full to the readership. Grade: D

The Wall Street Journal: A concise and focused examination of Korea’s test in the context of the country’s political aims, actions, and relationships with other nations. Reactions from the region and front the United States. Relevant history of Korea’s military decisions and goals in a local and global context. Grade: A

What I wanted to see: I really couldn’t ask more of journalism than the coverage I saw today. Even though I gave the CSM a D for not doing its own reporting, I loved the article they put together, and would appreciate seeing more of this kind of coverage. In another context, the article would get an A+. The Wall Street Journal was the go to source on this one, but the variety of perspectives and details that could be gathered from AP, AFP, the Post, The Times, and so many other organizations provided a good understanding of the situation—which is all we can ask from journalism. My only disappointment was McClatchy, who, at the writing of this review, had yet to post a story about the launch.

Trial of Suu Kyi

Today, Aung San Suu Kyi, the 1991 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize currently under house arrest in Myanmar, entered a plea of not guilty after the prosecution presented its arguments and the court accepted the charges.

Associated Press: A well-written detailed report on today’s proceeding, with a mention of the U.N.’s statement and a brief recount of the events that led to Suu Kyi’s arrest. Grade: B+

Agence France Presse: A detailed report on what happened today, with quotes from Suu Kyi’s lawyer, a summary of the proceedings, and brief mention of what will happen next. It’s too bad that AFP has chosen to hide its news reports from non-subscribers. It’s understandable, but I miss browsing the AFP Top Stories. This one was available on the front page and was reprinted in full in Raw Story, with other outlets carrying the first paragraphs. Grade: B+

Reuters: A fairly long article with information about the proceedings and background, good quotes, and some courtroom details I did not see in other reports. Grade: B+

BBC News: Best of the articles I read. I appreciated the focus given to the incident that led to Suu Kyi’s arrest. The article also presented greater detail about the political situation in Myanmar. Grade: A-

What I wanted to see: Perhaps I’ve been reading too many mysteries, but I’d like someone to take a closer look at the background of John Yettaw, the American responsible for these new charges against Suu Kyi. It is very suspicious that she was scheduled for release only a few days from today, May 27. Nothing about Yettaw’s background was mentioned in any of the articles.

Obama speech on Guantanamo

I’m looking at the media coverage of President Obama’s landmark May 21, 2009 speech on the legal complications of closing the detainee camp at Guantanamo Bay.

USA Today: An interesting frame. The story starts with a summary of Obama’s main points. Followed by links to the speech and the response from Ex VP Cheney. What I liked about the structure of the article was that Cheney’s response was sandwiched between elements of Obama’s speech. Cheney positioned himself as giving a “rebuttal” to the president’s arguments, but, as USA Today pointed out, the answers to Cheney’s rebuttal were contained within the president’s remarks—which USA Today used to close the article. Grade: B-

Christian Science Monitor: Like much of CSM’s Obama coverage, this story seemed to be striving for a negative take. The article summarized the contents of the speech and highlighted the criticisms that followed, emphasizing the swiftness of the negative response. I’ve been disappointed in CSM’s general coverage of the president, and this article did not change my perspective. Grade: C

The New York Times: Even worse than the Monitor, the NYT framed the entire speech as an exercise in CYA, imposing its own assumptions on the president’s motivations for making the speech and giving Ex-VP Cheney’s speech equal weight, authority, and legitimacy—despite the fact that the rebuttal contained several assertions effectively countered by the president’s remarks. Grade: C-

The Washington Post: As if the Times coverage weren’t bad enough, the Post delivered a clumsy face-off framing as if the speeches were some kind of duel. They wrote about and analyzed the speeches as a package. Grade: F

What I wanted to see: Some background, some context for the President’s remarks, relating his remarks to the reality of Guantanamo, rather than presenting the remarks as if the history contained therein were a given. Did the president accurately portray the realities of the Guantanamo situation? Did he leave out any important issues? What were some of the more significant proposals presented? Do these proposals change the course of American policy, and if so, how?

Sort this

CALL CONGRESS
Your Congresspeople really do care about phone calls because phone calls represent votes.  More.

POWERSHOP
One of the most political things we do is shop. Think carefully about the media you consume. Choose wisely and strategically. Where we spend our time and money determines who has wealth, success, and political power.  More.

COFFEE AND OTHER STAPLES
Spare the price of a cup of coffee just once a week, and you can make a change that matters to you—and to somebody else, too.  More.

The Real News

EPA News

The Real News

http://www.adbusters.org/

INTERACT
New York Times

The progressive format is dedicated to public service and dissemination of truthful information.

---

Commercial Stations

AIR AMERICA

Thom Hartmann
Weekdays 12 noon est

Rachel Maddow
Weekdays 6 pm est

Ring of Fire
Saturdays 4 pm est

Politically Direct
Sundays 4 pm est

NOVA M RADIO

Randi Rhodes
Weekdays 3 pm est

Jeff Farias
Weekdays 6 pm pst

Mike Malloy
Weeknights 9 pm est

Unreported News
Sundays 8 am pst

The Cutting Edge
Sundays 9 am pst

JONES RADIO NETWORKS

Bill Press
Weekdays 6 am est

Stephanie Miller
Weekdays 9 am pst

Ed Schultz
Weekdays 12 noon est

RECOMMENDED

Peter B. Collins
Weekdays, KRXA, 6 pm est

Peter Werbe
Sundays, WRIF, 11 pm est

---

Listener-Sponsored

INDEPENDENT

Democracy Now!
Free Speech Radio News
Head On Radio Network

PACIFICA

KPFA
San Francisco

KPFK
Los Angeles
Santa Barbara

KPFT
Houston

WBAI
New York

WPFW
Washington

Think tanks, that is.

Center for American Progress
Common Cause
Institute for Policy Studies
Open Society Institute
People for the American Way

C-SPAN

Current TV
Democracy Now
Link TV

CBS
60 Minutes

PBS
Bill Moyers Journal
Frontline

YouTube
Air America Media
Black Press Media
Center for America Progress
C-SPAN
Citizen Tube
Environmental Defense Fund
Declare Yourself
Defenders of Wildlife
Earth Justice
Friends of Earth
LinkTV
Media that Matters
National Wildlife Federation
NRDC Flix
One
OneVoice
Politico
Russ Feingold’s Progressive Patriots
The Real News
Witness
You Choose
The Young Turks

The Atlantic
Grist
Harpers Magazine
In These Times
Mother Jones
The Nation
The New Yorker
The Progressive
Rolling Stone
Salon
Vanity Fair